| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |
| Date: | 2022-04-20 02:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | 2658371.1650422377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:07 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> This is the bug.
> While I haven't experimented with this for confirmation, what you are
> proposing here (set + parallel safe) is an impossible runtime
> combination (semantic rule) but perfectly valid to write syntactically.
I'm not sure that that's actually disallowed. In any case, Bryn's
right, the combination of a SET clause and a PARALLEL clause is
implemented incorrectly in AlterFunction. Careless coding :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-04-20 02:47:07 | Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-20 02:21:19 | Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug |